HARPAL SINGH CHAUHAN AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1993] 3 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 15-06-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-.. 
HARPAL SINGH CHAUHAN AND ORS. ETC. 
"· 
STATE OF U.P. 
JUNE 15. 1993 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.P. SINGH, J.J.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 24 read witlz Paras 7.06, 7.08 
of the Legal Remembrancer Manual-Renewal of term of District Governmellt 
Counsel Procedure under the Manual- Requiremems under S.24 of tlze Code. 
A 
B 
Code of Crii~inal Procedure, 1973-Section 24-Public Prosecutor or C 
Additional PubNr'! Prosecutor-Term of-Extension of renewal-Scope of-Duty 
of Sessions 
Judge 
and 
·District 
Magistrate-
Panel 
of 
lawyers-Preparation-Necessity of 
Co11stit111ion of India, 1950-Article 136-Appeal-Assistant District Gov-
D 
ernment Counsfl's names recommended by Sessions Judge for extension of their 
tenures not recommended by District Magistrate-Rejection of Sessions Judge's 
recommendO!ion by State-legality of 
Civil Services-Assiswnt District Government Counsel's names recom-
mended b}• sessions Judge for extension of their tenures not recommended by 
District Magistrate-Rejection of Sessions Judge's recommendation by 
S1a1e-Legalil)• of 
E 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3-Section 24(4 ~Consideration of suit-
ability of a person to the post of District Government Counsel by Distrl~t-~ F 
Magistrate-Judicial review by Courts-Scope of 
C.A. Nos. 722 and 723 of 1993. 
On 25.2.91 the appellants except appellant No. 3 were appointed as 
Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) in accordance with the G 
provisions of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Legal 
Remembrancer Manual. The appellant No.3 was appointed on 13.12.1990. 
The last date of the tenure .;f the appellants, except appellant No.3, was 
31.12.1991, whereas the tenure of appellant No. 3 was upto 13.12.1991. Before 
H 
969 
970 
SUPRE~1E COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 3 S.CR 
A 
the expiQ· of their terms, the District.Judge, preparing two list<>, 'A' and 'B' 
recommended the appellants' names for extension of their tenures. List 'A' 
contained the names of Lawyers (including the appeUants), whose work and 
conduct was approved for their extension, whereas List 'B' contained the 
remaining names of the lawyers (including app~llants in C.A. Nos.386, 387/ 
1993) who were considered as 'average lawyers'. The Distr·ict ,Judge re-
B 
quested the District Magistrate to send his recommendation to the State 
Government. 
c 
The District Magistrate did not recommend t~e appellants' names as 
their reputation, professional work, behaviour and conduct was not found in 
accordance with public interest: 
On 28.12.1991 the State Government extended the terms of the appel-
lants till further orders. Later without assigning an)' reason, the extension 
recommended by the District ,Judge was rejected by the State Government. 
D 
The appellants fded writ petitions in the High Court against the 
E 
Government's decision. The High Court dismissed their writ applications, 
against which the present appeals were fded by special leave before this 
Court. 
C.A. Nos. 386 & 387 OF 1993. 
The appeliants' names were included in the List 'B' prepared by the 
District ,Judge. The State Government rejected the recommendation of the 
District.Judge, without assigning any reason. The writ petitions preferred by 
them in the High Court were dismissed. Hence these appeals by special leave. 
F 
As there was a common is~ue arose in these appeals, same were heard 
G 
and decided together. 
The appellants contended th~t in view of Para 7 .06(2) of the Legal 
Remembrancer Manual the appointment of any legal practitioner as a 
District Government Counsel did not automatically come to an end. 
The State submitted that as Section 24(4) of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure vested power in the District Magistrate to consider the suitability 
of the person concerned, for appointment, according to his opinion, as such 
_there was not much scope of judicial review by Courts, unless a clear case of 
H 
~alice on the part of the District Magistrate was made out. 
'. :·,'.·~ 
HARPAL SINGH v. STA 1E OF U.P. 
971 
Allowing the Civil Appeals Nos. 722 and 723of1993 and dismissing the 
A 
Civil Appeal Nos. 386 and 387of1993, this Court-
HELD: 1.1. When sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) of Section 24 of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, speak about preparation ofa panel, out of which 
appointments against the posts of Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor 
have to be ma<lc, then the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate arc 
required to consult.ilid discuss the names of t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.